Halipeurus angusticeps ( Piaget, 1880 )

Palma, Ricardo L., 2011, New taxa, new synonymies and new host records in the louse genus Halipeurus (Insecta: Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) parasitic on petrels (Aves: Procellariiformes), Zootaxa 3017, pp. 1-45 : 19-22

Halipeurus angusticeps ( Piaget, 1880)

( Figs 38–40 , 62 )

Lipeurus angusticeps Piaget, 1880: 306 , pl. 25, fig. 4. Type host: Procellaria cinerea Gmelin, 1789 (in error). Lectotype 3 in NHML, designated by Edwards (1961: 135).

“ Lipeurus exiguus ” Uchida, 1917: 206 (not Lipeurus exiguus Kellogg & Kuwana, 1902: 479 ).

Halipeurus angusticeps ; Hopkins & Clay, 1952: 163.

Halipeurus sawadai Nakagawa, 1959: 384 , fig. 1A–C, 2B,D. Type host: Calonectris leucomelas (Temminck, 1835) . Holotype 3 in NSMJ. New synonymy.

Halipeurus angusticeps ; Timmermann, 1961: 402.

Halipeurus (Halipeurus) angusticeps angusticeps ; Edwards, 1961: 135, figs 3A–7A.

Halipeurus (Halipeurus) angusticeps fosteri Edwards, 1961: 137 , figs 3B–7B. Type host: Calonectris leucomelas (Temminck, 1835) . Holotype 3 in MCZC. New synonymy.

Halipeurus (Halipeurus) angusticeps ; Timmermann, 1965: 139.

Halipeurus sawadai ; Tsurumi, 1989: 281.

Halipeurus (Halipeurus) angusticeps angusticeps ; Price et al., 2003: 187.

Halipeurus (Halipeurus) angusticeps fosteri ; Price et al., 2003: 187.

Halipeurus (Halipeurus) sawadai ; Price et al., 2003: 188.

MATERIAL EXAMINED

Types

Ex Procellaria cinerea : Lectotype 3 and 43, 2Ƥ paralectotypes of Halipeurus angusticeps , no locality, no date ( NHML, Piaget Collection 1928-325, slides 442, 444, 445, p51a,b).

Ex Calonectris leucomelas : Holotype 3, allotype Ƥ and 23, 1Ƥ paratypes of Halipeurus sawadai, Izu-Toshima I. , Japan, 17 Jul. 1957, H. Sawada & K. Shirai ( NSMJ). Holotype 3 of Halipeurus angusticeps fosteri , near Shanghai, MCZ skin 131514 (see note below), no date ( MCZC); 13, 1Ƥ paratypes of H. angusticeps fosteri , 3o10’S- 155o E, no date, C.H. Curran ( AMNH); 1Ƥ paratype of H. angusticeps fosteri , New Guinea, no date ( NHML, Thompson Collection 1980-40).

Note: Edwards (1961: 139) published the number of the MCZ skin, from which he collected the holotype of H. angusticeps fosteri , as “131515”. However, the label of the holotype slide, also written by Edwards, clearly reads “131514”.

Non-types

Ex Calonectris leucomelas : 13, 1Ƥ, Hachijojima I., Izu Is, Japan, Jul. 1958 ( NSMJ); 1Ƥ, Saitama Prefecture, Japan, 7 Oct. 1958, T. Suzuki ( NSMJ); 23, 1Ƥ, Puerto Princesa, Palawan, Philippines, 12 May 1962, M. Thompson ( KCEM); 13, Nango, Mikura I., Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, 14 Nov. 1964, H.E. McClure ( KCEM); 43, 2Ƥ, Kawada, Mikura I., Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, 17 Nov. 1964, H.E. McClure ( KCEM); 33, 1Ƥ, Kawada, Mikura I., Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, 20 Nov. 1964, H.E. McClure ( KCEM; USNM); 23, 6Ƥ, Kawada, Mikura I., Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, 22 May 1967, K. Takahashi ( NSMJ); 13, 3Ƥ, 22 km S of Raine I., Great Barrier Reef, Australia, 12 Dec. 1979, B. King ( MONZ); 33, 3Ƥ, Toshima I., Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, 11 Oct. 1981, M. Tsurumi ( MONZ; YIOJ); 73, 6Ƥ, Oga-gou, Hachijojima I., Izu Is, Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, 25 Nov. 1995, M. Tsurumi ( MONZ; YIOJ); 73, 9Ƥ, Hachijojima I., Izu Is, Tokyo Prefecture, Japan, 15 Nov. 2000, M. Tsurumi ( MONZ; YIOJ); 123, 14Ƥ, Kawhia Beach, Waikato, N.Z., 25 Feb. 2006, D. Christie ( MONZ).

DISCUSSION: Comparison of the lectotype of Halipeurus angusticeps ( Fig. 38 ) against each of the holotypes of Halipeurus sawadai and of Halipeurus angusticeps fosteri shows that they are all conspecific, and so are all other male specimens listed above under material examined. Also, female paralectotypes of H. angusticeps (e.g. Fig. 39 ) are conspecific with paratypes of both H. sawadai and H. angusticeps fosteri , as well as with all other females listed above under material examined. The identity of the type host of H. angusticeps —certainly not its natural regular host—has contributed to the proliferation of junior synonyms. I have never collected a Halipeurus louse from Procellaria cinerea , and neither did Edwards (1961: 136) who carefully examined “… almost 75 museum skins ...” without finding any specimen. In fact, no species of Procellaria harbours any Halipeurus species as regular natural ectoparasites ( Pilgrim & Palma 1982: 11; Price et al. 2003: 371).

There are two possible scenarios to explain the artificial association of Piaget’s type series of H. angusticeps with Procellaria cinerea . One is that the type series was somewhat accidentally transferred from a specimen of C. leucomelas to one of P. c i n e re a before or after the latter became a skin in the collection of the Leiden Museum. After all, cross contamination of lice among skins kept in museum collections is not unusual, as it has been the case of other Piaget louse material (see Clay 1973: 218). However, I believe the most likely explanation is a misidentification of the original bird from which the Piaget type series of H. angusticeps originated. Further evidence of a host misidentification can be found in the Piaget (1880: 501) designation of Procellaria cinerea as the type host for his new species “ Menopon longithoracicum ” (now Austromenopon longithoracicum (Piaget, 1880)) . Price & Clay (1972: 497) failed to find any additional specimen of A. longithoracicum from its type host, but they examined four other samples of this louse species from Calonectris leucomelas (as Puffinus leucomelas ). I have examined five additional samples (21 lice) of A. longithoracicum from C. leucomelas . In my opinion, a cross contamination of all the type material of both H. angusticeps and A. longithoracicum (a total of at least 15 specimens) from one or more C. leucomelas to one or two P. c i n e re a is far less likely than a misidentification of the type host(s).

Nakagawa (1959) compared his Halipeurus material from Calonectris leucomelas against specimens of Halipeurus diversus ( Kellogg, 1896) , H. mirabilis ( Thompson, 1940) and H. abnormis ( Piaget, 1885) . Indeed, those three species are very different from H. angusticeps in several features, especially the terminalia and genitalia of the males. However, Nakagawa (1959) failed to compare his material against authenticated specimens of H. angusticeps , perhaps misled by the fact that the type host of this latter species is not a species of Calonectris . From my examination of the types of H. sawadai and the clear illustrations published by Nakagawa (1959: 388), I have no doubt that H. sawadai is a subjective junior synonym of H. angusticeps .

The rationale behind the Edwards (1961) decision to segregate the Halipeurus from Calonectris leucomelas as a new subspecies of H. angusticeps is not entirely clear. Firstly, he was not aware of the Nakagawa (1959) paper, otherwise he may not have published his new taxon. Secondly, Edwards (1961: 137) stated that H. a. angusticeps “… is very closely related to that parasitizing Puffinus leucomelas , …” and, thirdly, he believed that there may have existed a local population of Calonectris diomedea parasitized by H. a. angusticeps , despite the fact that in his own experience all subspecies of C. diomedea were parasitized by Halipeurus abnormis only. After examining 30 samples of Halipeurus from as many individuals of the three subspecies of C. diomedea , I have not been able to find a single H. angusticeps : all specimens are H. abnormis . On the other hand, I have examined 16 samples of H. angusticeps from C. leucomelas (see above).

Having examined three males and four females of Piaget’s type series of H. angusticeps, Edwards (1961) distinguished his subspecies H. angusticeps fosteri from H. angusticeps angusticeps on the basis of very tenuous characters, such as size, degree of sclerotization, the shape of the posterior margin of the male sternite 9 + 10, and the curvature of the right paramere in the male genitalia. From my examination of 48 males of H. angusticeps from Calonectris leucomelas and 5 males from Piaget’s type series, I found that the shape of the posterior margin of the male sternite 9 + 10 is quite variable as shown in Fig. 40a–g . Similarly, the curvature of the right paramere in the male genitalia ( Fig. 62 ) is likely to vary among individuals because that paramere is very thin and liable to bend during the slide-mounting process. Therefore, I have no hesitation to propose that H. angusticeps fosteri is an objective junior synonym of H. sawadai as well as a subjective junior synonym of H. angusticeps sensu stricto.

Figures

FIGURES 38 – 39. Halipeurus angusticeps: 38, habitus of male lectotype. 39, habitus of female paralectotype (slide 445). Scale = 1 mm.

FIGURE 40 a – g. Halipeurus angusticeps: Variability in male sternite 9 + 10, ventral view (setae omitted, only alveoli shown): a, lectotype of H. angusticeps. b, holotype of H. sawadai. c, paratype of H. sawadai. d and e, specimens from Mikura Island. f, holotype of H. a. forsteri. g, paratype of H. a. forsteri.

FIGURES 61 – 65. Male genitalia, dorsal view: 61, Halipeurus fallacis. 62, Halipeurus angusticeps. 63, Halipeurus pelagodromae. 64, Halipeurus spadix subclavus. 65, Halipeurus pricei.